Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal

more »

... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS that under B. & C. Code ? I6 the statute of limitations did not run against the cause of action while defendant was out of the state and plaintiff could recover on the notes. Jamieson v. Potts (I909), -Ore. -, I05 Pac. 93. The majority of the court in construing the statute, which controlled the question decided, arrived at their decision by drawing a very close distinctionbetween the principal case and McCormick v. Blanchard, 7 Ore. 232, which was followed by Crane v. Jones, 24 Ore. 419, 33 Pac. 869, and Van Santvoord v. Roethler, 35 Ore. 250, 57 Pac. 628, 76 Am. St. Rep, 472. The dissenting judge held that the case under discussion was controlled by the former three decisions; and also cited Buchner v. C. M. & N. W. Ry. Co., 60 Wis. 264; Brown v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., IO2 Wis. 137; Kirby Z. Boyette, II8 N. C. 244, as in poiht. These cases, however, upon examination will be found not in accord with the facts of the principal case. The fact of personal presence in, or absence from the state controls the question of limitation. Hoggett v. Emerson, 8 Kan. 262; Investment Securities Co., v. Bergthold, 60 Kan. 813. When the action accrues absence from the state will prevent the statute running as long as the party remains out of the state. Adkins v. Loucks, 107 Wis. 587, 83 N. W. 934, and to the same effect Hacker v. Everett, 57 Me. 548; Bennett v. Cook, 43 N. Y. 537; Powers Mercantile Co., v. Blethen, 9I Minn. 339, 97 N. W. Io56;Janeway et al. v. Burton, 20I Ill. 78. The decision of the majority is sustained by reason and authority, and is in accord with the express provision of the statute.